Appeal No. 2003-0072
Application No. 09/032,407
method disclosed by Ginter “because such modifications would have
provided ‘a separate algorithm for digital signatures that cannot
be used for encryption.’” (Answer-page 6, quoting Schneier at
page 37).
Then, at page 7 of the answer, the examiner indicates that
Ginter shows elements suggesting “enabling a first party to apply
for registration with a second party, the first party having
access to financial resources through the second party...”
(identifying column 42, lines 4-16, column 210, lines 49-52, and
column 223, lines 14-16 of Ginter) and elements suggesting
“transferring the commercial relationship certificate to the
first party from the second party over the unsecure network, the
commercial relationship certificate being digitally signed by the
second party and including the certified identifier...”
(identifying column 261, lines 10-47 of Ginter).
Because Gitner lacks an explicit recitation of “a commercial
relationship certificate...,” the examiner interprets Ginter’s
certificate as a commercial relationship certificate and also
refers to the Rosen (518) disclosure of a “certificate” at column
5, lines 38-40.
Since Ginter fails to explicitly show “an index to the
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007